The Cato Institute warns that the USPS's current handling of mail balloting poses a significant risk of systemic failure ahead of major elections. Key concerns include whistleblower allegations regarding 'batch rejection protocols,' which could invalidate thousands of legitimate ballots, coupled with documented slowdowns in delivery speed and increased rejections for lateness. This instability suggests potential operational or political interference aimed at undermining mail voting integrity. Consequently, the article advises that voters and state election officials must plan to bypass the USPS system by utilizing alternative secure methods, such as drop boxes or early in-person voting, to ensure timely ballot submission.
William Pulte Served Illegally as Acting Director of National Intelligence for Nearly a Week
English Summary
The article argues that William Pulte illegally continued serving as Acting Director of National Intelligence for nearly a week after Jay Clayton was confirmed by the Senate, violating the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA). The analysis asserts that under the plain language of the FVRA, an acting officer's authority expires immediately upon the confirmation of a permanent nominee, regardless of subsequent presidential delays in appointment. This overreach places any actions taken by Pulte during that period—including personnel decisions—in legal jeopardy for the administration. The finding suggests that executive branch adherence to statutory limits on temporary power is critical, as failure to respect these boundaries exposes the government to costly and unprecedented litigation.
中文摘要
本文論述，威廉·普爾特（William Pulte）在傑伊·克萊頓（Jay Clayton）經參議院確認後，仍非法擔任國家情報局代理主任近一週時間，此舉違反了《聯邦空缺改革法案》（Federal Vacancies Reform Act, FVRA）。分析指出，根據FVRA的明文規定，一旦永久提名人獲確認，代理官員的權限應立即失效，與總統隨後任命延遲的時間無關。這種越權行為使得普爾特在此期間所採取的任何行動——包括人事決策——都使行政部門面臨法律風險。此發現表明，行政部門遵守法定臨時權力限制至關重要，否則未能尊重這些界限將使政府暴露於成本高昂且史無前例的訴訟之中。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
The article argues that the United States' aggressive use of tariffs and economic coercion is counterproductive, inspiring international partners to actively circumvent US markets. Instead of increasing dependency on American trade, major global players are deepening cooperation by establishing new free trade agreements (e.g., EU-India, ACFTA, CPTPP) that explicitly exclude the U.S. This trend signals a significant shift toward increased global economic integration outside of US influence. Policymakers should recognize this accelerating decoupling, as it suggests that the traditional American model of trade leverage is rapidly diminishing unless the U.S. commits to upholding multilateral rules and reducing protectionism.
-
3.
The article argues that passing a Continuing Resolution (CR), while preventing an immediate government shutdown, merely preserves an unsustainable fiscal status quo rather than addressing underlying budgetary crises. Congress is criticized for using the CR as an escape route from difficult choices—such as cutting programs or tackling massive deficits—while simultaneously planning to increase debt through reconciliation packages for defense and agriculture. The core problem remains mandatory spending (Social Security, Medicare) driving debt unsustainably. For genuine fiscal stability, the author advises that Congress must move beyond short-term funding measures, prioritize essential functions, and establish a dedicated process to impose discipline on mandatory programs.
-
4.
The article argues that inheritance and estate taxes are detrimental to economic growth, investment, and productivity. Citing Sweden's experience after abolishing the gift and inheritance tax in 2005, the author notes subsequent increases in firm profitability, net sales, and asset values. The core reasoning suggests that removing these taxes allows owner-managers to reinvest capital directly into their companies rather than withdrawing funds for anticipated future tax liabilities. This increased internal investment has been shown to boost corporate financial health and higher corporate income tax payments.
-
5.
The CATO article argues that the US-Venezuela oil deal is deeply problematic due to significant governance and ethical concerns. Key criticisms include a lack of transparency in negotiations, the expansion of state corporatism through government involvement in resource extraction, and questionable legality since it bypasses Venezuelan constitutional requirements. Furthermore, the agreement utilizes a notoriously corrupt private partner and sidelines the democratic opposition, severely undermining US credibility and future diplomatic efforts. Strategically, the deal is viewed as an ill-advised 'imperial resource grab' that risks damaging long-term American influence in Latin America.